PennyWort

Member
  • Content count

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal medal

Community Reputation

161 Neutral

About PennyWort

  • Rank
    Sergeant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

224 profile views
  1. Not even worth the roast. I'll save my opinions for when they actually matter, not to refute something that's blatantly wrong.
  2. Oh, hush you xD Of course I know how I die and exactly what I should have done to keep from dying. But I really don't care about my stats at all--I want to push myself to the limits when I fly. To me, it's how low I can camp above the enemy spawn, how many reds I can dogfight at once, etc. And that obviously comes with its inherent risks--my KDR is high compared to an average player, but it really shouldn't be this low for someone who can fly the way I do (tooting my own horn is fun sometimes lol) But here I see some very obvious divisions between opinions. People like me and venatores don't care about leaving matches before they end; others (objective players and the like--people who tend to die a lot because of how they play) cannot think of not seeing a match to the end. It's really in the end a matter of perspective, but as many of the comments have pointed out, you really shouldn't expect anything from your team in this game--it's sad, but that's the way it is. In the end, it's really a matter of perspective. People who leave matches often (and I'm talking about the good players who do this, not the average ragequitter) turn their noses up at objective players, and objective players don't think too highly of ragequitters.
  3. ... Because I don't spam planes? It's not even stats for me--it's usually a bad map or a bad game. If there's something worth staying for--a talented player to take down, a squad to play with, more planes to spade, or a battle to win (wagers), I'll stay. If not, I'll leave. I don't care about what happens to my team when I leave; I don't care about winning when I don't run wagers (unless it's air dom. I'll burn through my lineup if need be). It's just that fighter pilots of a high caliber hate dying because they're capable of so much more.
  4. Because good players get angry when they die? Because they're spading a single plane and have no reason to fly the rest of the match? Because someone gets a lucky shot and they can't take the BS? Once you reach a level of skill that doesn't involve spamming planes over and over, it gets to you when you die.
  5. The guns are really inconsistent, but I do find that stealth and tracers work the best. Uni also seems fine.
  6. You'll need more than 120 to kill a bomber these days. 7.9s are useless. And even if you do get a lucky fire, it'll probably put it out eventually and keep flying fine. Even 37mms don't work well anymore--the American one is inaccurate and does nothing but spark, and now the Russian one (on the Yak 3T and 9P/9UT) seems way worse. I've sparked 5+ off of heavy bombers. Imagine this in real life--a plane with a tank-busting gun blasts a Stirling 7 times, but the only result is an oil leak? Absurd.
  7. Funnily enough, the few times that I have tried to bomb effectively in a B-25, I have always been frustrated by my inability to fight back. I've been chased from space by stupid pilots in heavily-armed planes that just want that single bomber kill and have had no way to effectively defend myself; I have had my tail control shot off and had three reds on my tail spraying me relentlessly; I have felt like my gunners were not doing enough and killing those guys sitting on my tail. However, in retrospect, I was, in CoolJ's words, flying a lumbering XP pinata. I was playing too aggressively and assuming that I would be able to get my bombs off in the face of multiple fighters; when that P-51 shot off my tail, I neglected to consider the fact that I had led him from altitude, and that it had taken several seconds (and many shells to actually damage my tail); in my anger and sense of hopelessness, I forgot that I lasted more than 3 minutes with cannon-armed planes shooting at my tail; in my anger at the planes on my six and at the incompetence of my gunners, I forgot that I wasn't doing any work at all myself in the actual shooting at the planes behind me, and that I can't even kill heavy bombers with 6 50 cals, let alone with a singular tail gunner with stock ammo. In short, the intrinsic vulnerability of bombers makes people angry and wishful for more AI and DM/FM "help"--they don't realize that to stay alive in a bomber, they can't fly straight or expect to survive with three guys spraying at them (and I've some heavy British bombers hold up pretty well with the entire enemy team on their sixes). Gunners are a last resort. Fly your bomber intelligently--climb to space and avoid enemy fighters. Seek fighter cover. Side climb. Diving in B-29s to the deck to kill Gaijin's stupidly-placed AI targets is unrealistic and idiotic. It really shouldn't be this way--bombers shouldn't be this tanky, and they should have easy targets to bomb while they're at altitude. Stop promoting suicidal play and all-around stupidity, Gaijin. There's a reason why WT's playerbase is diminishing--and it's not because bombers aren't well-defended and well-armed enough--it's because that fighter pilots are tired of chasing bombers who dive from spawn and go around spamming bombs at tanks and pills; having a single 7.7 or 12.7 completely blow up their engine or set a fatal fire; having to spray at a bomber for too long and expend way too many rounds (it often takes several hundred 20mms to kill a heavy bomber); and watching helplessly as do-217s dive faster than them, kill 10 ground targets for huge RP gains and then respawn three more times for exactly the same results.
  8. So basically you're frustrated that you can't fly straight, press the space bar over and over, and feel good about yourself (and your apparent abundance of skill) after a win? Use your brain when you fly a bomber, will you? Mama's not here to spoonfeed you in a virtual world like WT. Grow up and realize that your situation is advantageous, not disadvantageous.